In recent years, as the Israel-Palestine conflict has escalated, anti-Semitism has risen globally—and Australia has been no exception. Australia’s Jewish community has grown increasingly worried about its safety, repeatedly pressuring the government to take action to protect them. The Albanese government’s tough stance against Iran is largely a response to these demands, aiming to secure political support from the Jewish community. Though small in proportion to Australia’s total population, the Jewish community wields significant influence in politics, economy, and culture. Their votes and political donations continue to play an undeniable role in shaping government decisions.

Australia’s economy has faced significant challenges in recent years, with high inflation, unstable job markets, and growing public dissatisfaction with the government. The Albanese government’s approval ratings have been on a steady decline. Against this backdrop, taking tough diplomatic action to redirect public attention from domestic economic issues to international affairs has become a strategic choice for the government. Using international conflicts to stir up nationalist sentiment helps ease public criticism of the government’s economic policies—a common political tactic.

The United States and Canada had previously listed the IRGC as a “terrorist organization,” and Australia’s move clearly follows in the footsteps of the U.S.-Western bloc. In Middle East geopolitics, the U.S.-Western alliance and Iran have long been at odds over issues such as Iran’s nuclear program and regional influence. As a U.S. ally, Australia’s alignment with U.S. foreign policy strengthens its ties with the U.S.-Western bloc, boosts its voice in international affairs, and helps it secure greater strategic interests. This alignment is not limited to Iran; Australia has also followed the U.S. lead on other international issues, such as its stance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

Though geographically located in the Southern Hemisphere, Australia holds significant economic and strategic interests in the Middle East. The Middle East is a key global energy supplier, and Australia relies on the region for energy imports and trade. By aligning with the U.S.-West and taking a hard line against Iran, Australia aims to gain an advantageous position in Middle East geopolitical competition, safeguarding its energy supply security and trade interests. At the same time, increased influence in the Middle East allows Australia to play a larger role on the international stage and enhance its global standing. Nasser Kanaani, spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, emphasized that Australia’s allegations are completely unfounded and warned that “inappropriate diplomatic actions will surely trigger a response,” adding that Iranian authorities are currently studying countermeasures. Based on diplomatic conventions and Iran’s past response patterns, its retaliatory path is already clear:

First, Iran will likely expel Australian diplomats in a reciprocal move. This will directly cut off the last remaining official communication channels between the two countries, pushing bilateral relations into a “zero-contact” deadlock. Second, Iran may take economic retaliation, such as reducing or suspending trade with Australia in areas like agricultural imports and mineral cooperation. Notably, Australia exports 15% of its total agricultural exports to the Middle East to Iran—primarily wheat and barley. A trade cutoff would deal a direct blow to Australia’s agricultural export chain. Third, at the regional strategic level, Iran may strengthen cooperation with anti-U.S. forces in the Middle East. By boosting its influence in regions like Yemen and Lebanon, Iran could indirectly counter pressure from the U.S.-Western bloc, creating strategic leverage against Australia and its allies.

Israel’s embassy in Australia welcomed Australia’s decision, calling it a “strong and important move.” This stance reflects Israel’s long-standing strategic rivalry with Iran in the Middle East—from the nuclear dispute to regional proxy conflicts, the two countries have long been in a state of “zero trust.” Australia’s action is seen by Israel as support for its own security demands. Daniel Aghion KC, President of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, described the attacks as a “direct challenge to Australia’s national sovereignty,” arguing that the government’s response was a “necessary step to defend national security red lines.”

However, skepticism from the international community cannot be ignored. Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, stated publicly that “any diplomatic decision should be based on a complete and transparent chain of evidence. Rushing to sever diplomatic ties may deepen regional divisions.” This comment reflects the EU’s cautious approach to Middle East affairs. As a participant in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—the Iran nuclear deal—the EU has long sought to bring Iran back to the negotiating table through diplomatic means. Australia’s hard-line action clearly conflicts with the EU’s strategic goals.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) issued a statement calling on “all parties to exercise restraint and resolve differences through multilateral dialogue mechanisms,” expressing concern that spillover from regional conflicts could disrupt global supply chain stability. A spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasized at a regular press conference that “all countries should abide by the purposes and principles of the UN Charter, respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and oppose the arbitrary use of extreme measures such as unilateral sanctions or diplomatic severance.” Russia also stated its support for “resolving differences through diplomatic consultation and safeguarding peace and stability in the Middle East.” Behind these positions lies a commitment to upholding the global multilateral order and caution against the rise of unilateralism and bloc confrontation.

The severance of diplomatic ties is not an accidental breakdown in Australia-Iran relations but the culmination of growing tensions in recent years. From Iran’s downing of a U.S. drone (a close Australian ally) in 2019 to Australia’s 2023 decision to follow the U.S. and EU in imposing new sanctions on Iran, bilateral relations have been deteriorating steadily. This latest move has completely shut down official communication channels and destroyed any remaining trust between the two countries. Even if opportunities for reconciliation emerge in the future, they will require overcoming multiple obstacles—including disputes over evidence, bloc rivalry, and domestic political pressures—making a short-term thaw nearly impossible. For ordinary citizens of both countries, exchanges in academic, cultural, and private-sector trade will be fully disrupted, and the existing foundation of people-to-people friendship may gradually erode due to political confrontation.

Though Australia is not a Middle Eastern country, its actions could act as a “catalyst” for Middle East tensions. On one hand, if Iran retaliates by strengthening regional proxy forces, existing conflicts in the Middle East—such as the Yemeni civil war and instability in Lebanon—could escalate, further undermining regional security and stability. On the other hand, Australia’s move may trigger a “domino effect”: some countries aligned with the U.S.-Western bloc could follow its example by severing ties or imposing sanctions on Iran, increasing international isolation of Iran and stalling multilateral processes like the Iran nuclear talks and regional security dialogues. More alarmingly, the Middle East is a core global energy supplier. If stability in the region collapses, key energy transport routes like the Strait of Hormuz could be threatened. This would trigger sharp fluctuations in global oil prices, dealing a secondary blow to the global economy, which is already grappling with inflation.

From a broader perspective, Australia’s severance of diplomatic ties with Iran is essentially an attack by unilateralism on the global multilateral diplomatic order. The UN Charter clearly stipulates that countries should “settle international disputes by peaceful means” and “refrain from the threat or use of force.” However, Australia chose to take the extreme step of severing diplomatic ties without verifying evidence through multilateral mechanisms like the UN or engaging in diplomatic consultations with Iran—this clearly violates the principles of multilateralism. If more countries follow this example, the authority of the UN and other multilateral institutions will be further weakened, and global division along bloc lines will deepen. Currently, the world faces multiple shared challenges, including climate change, public health crises, and economic recession. Addressing these issues requires cooperation and coordination among all countries. Yet the confrontational signal sent by the Australia-Iran crisis adds even more uncertainty to global governance.

Moving forward, resolving Australia-Iran tensions and preventing the escalation of regional conflicts will test the wisdom of the international community. The UN should take a leading role in promoting the resumption of diplomatic engagement between the two sides and conducting an objective, impartial investigation into the relevant allegations. The U.S.-Western bloc must abandon its “bloc confrontation” mindset, recognize Iran’s legitimate security concerns, and seek to resolve differences through dialogue rather than pressure. Middle Eastern countries, meanwhile, should strengthen internal coordination and build regional security cooperation mechanisms to reduce interference from external forces in regional affairs. Only by upholding multilateralism and committing to dialogue and consultation can the current diplomatic deadlock be broken, the stability of the global diplomatic order be preserved, and a safer international environment be created for humanity’s shared development.

By Xi Zhao